quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
It will be fun watching people who's ~religion is vaunted science get skeptical over this

Science isn't a religion. Even if someone manages to convince themselves that it is a religion through ignorance or dishonest mental gymnastics the difference is obvious.

Science is not like religions because science actually works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A fire would have no effect on C-14 dating.

We'll take your word for it, shall we?

Dr John Jackson, of the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado in the United States, put the new hypothesis forward. Dr Jackson suggests that the shroud might over time have been contaminated with carbon monoxide, which is naturally enriched in radiocarbon. What is significant in this particular hypothesis is that only a 2 per cent carbon contamination from carbon monoxide is needed to move the medieval radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the first century.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
This is why its pointless to try and argue religion on a scientific basis. If you have faith and you want the turin shroud to be a relic then that's absolutely great. It's never going to be any more than faith though, science and religion are two completely separate things. Maybe you can chip away at accepted wisdom, such as the date the turin shroud was made. All it changes is the point from which you make your leap of faith. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, it should just be recognised for what it is

not saying religion & science arent two different subjects but seems to me yr claims go too far. science enables some pursuit of truth no matter tha subject. if Jesus was a real man made flesh then tha connection could in theory be made. plus science can at least authenticate tha object as coming from a natural process & originating in tha right place & time.

quote:

WantsOfTheFlesh
.... why it fits so neatly wit tha date for tha crucifiction [sic] is kinda odd.

quote:

The claim that this study's dates fit "neatly" with the myth's dates is simply not supported by the study's own data. Whatever the study's other merits or demerits may or may not be, the dates offered by this new study are so vague they are useless - unless, in true believer style, one is clutching at straws in a hopeless attempt to contrive a 'factual' basis for a mythical event.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
This is why its pointless to try and argue religion on a scientific basis. If you have faith and you want the turin shroud to be a relic then that's absolutely great. It's never going to be any more than faith though, science and religion are two completely separate things. Maybe you can chip away at accepted wisdom, such as the date the turin shroud was made. All it changes is the point from which you make your leap of faith. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, it should just be recognised for what it is

not saying religion & science arent two different subjects but seems to me yr claims go too far. science enables some pursuit of truth no matter tha subject. if Jesus was a real man made flesh then tha connection could in theory be made. plus science can at least authenticate tha object as coming from a natural process & originating in tha right place & time.

it's only the right place and time if you believe it though. Even if you could link the shroud scientifically to a man named Jesus then your leap of faith would come when you accepted that this Jesus was indeed the one from the bible, and that he did do the things said of him. Science will only take you so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

WantsOfTheFlesh
.... why it fits so neatly wit tha date for tha crucifiction [sic] is kinda odd.

Nice Freudian slip there WOTF - it's actually spelt 'crucifixion'. Or perhaps yours was an ironic comment on how fictional this whole issue is .... in which case you do deserve credit for a sophisticated and amusing comment.

quote:

Does this evidence fit "so neatly" with the purported date of Christ's crucifixion? According to the OP, "The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD." That's a period of c 700 years. Or roughly 25,000 days. The shroud could have been manufactured on any of the 25,000 days during that period, according to the to the OP
If, for the purposes of discussion, we grant that the shroud is in fact that of Jesus', then it was wrapped around his body on a single specific day sometime c33AD.* So using the study's own data, the 'fit' is approx 1 chance in c25,000. Which is an awfully long way from a neat fit. On this evidence alone, the chances of the 'shroud' being made on a day other than the relevant day are approx 24,999/1.[/

quote:


The claim that this study's dates fit "neatly" with the myth's dates is simply not supported by the study's own data. Whatever the study's other merits or demerits may or may not be, the dates offered by this new study are so vague they are useless - unless, in true believer style, one is clutching at straws in a hopeless attempt to contrive a 'factual' basis for a mythical event.

quote:

The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[101][102][241] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[12] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[239]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[4][9][242][243] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted.[10] Referring to the theories of non-existence of Jesus, Richard A. Burridge states: "I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

radio carbon dating figures r never exact. they are always based on percentages of probability. if tha date is between 300 bc & 400 ad then tha radio carbon median point of greatest probability is 50 ad, only 17 yrs from tha averaged historic date of Christs death. i reckon thats pretty remarkable.

quote:

The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[101][102][241] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[12] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[239]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[4][9][242][243] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted.[10] Referring to the theories of non-existence of Jesus, Richard A. Burridge states: "I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: thezeppo
This is why its pointless to try and argue religion on a scientific basis. If you have faith and you want the turin shroud to be a relic then that's absolutely great. It's never going to be any more than faith though, science and religion are two completely separate things. Maybe you can chip away at accepted wisdom, such as the date the turin shroud was made. All it changes is the point from which you make your leap of faith. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that, it should just be recognised for what it is

not saying religion & science arent two different subjects but seems to me yr claims go too far. science enables some pursuit of truth no matter tha subject. if Jesus was a real man made flesh then tha connection could in theory be made. plus science can at least authenticate tha object as coming from a natural process & originating in tha right place & time.

it's only the right place and time if you believe it though. Even if you could link the shroud scientifically to a man named Jesus then your leap of faith would come when you accepted that this Jesus was indeed the one from the bible, and that he did do the things said of him. Science will only take you so far.

i dont agree its dependant on belief coz tha story links to a very specific time & place whether anyone believes it or not.

there r two outcomes to such tests. if tha shroud links doesnt link to that time & place then it discredits tha story as sceptics would happily accept. if it does link to it then there is credence given to tha story without actually proving it all.

reckon ya could find that tha Jesus of the shroud was tha same Jesus of tha bible coz many that dont believe Jesus was tha son of God made flesh still believe he was a historic figure, just that he was mythologised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
ouch nice bitta sarcasm there tweaks cept it is spelt crucifiction too http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction but worry not coz i'll still give ya yr biscuit

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/crucifiction_vs_crucifixion
crucifiction vs crucifixion : Common Errors in English

About crucifiction vs crucifixion
One might suppose that this common misspelling was a product of skepticism were it not for the fact that it most often occurs in the writings of believers. The word should make clear that Jesus was affixed to the cross, not imply that his killing is regarded as a fiction.
crucifixion Meaning(s)

(n) the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross
(n) the death of Jesus by crucifixion
(n) the infliction of extremely painful punishment or suffering

quote:

WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

tweakabelle

Does this evidence fit "so neatly" with the purported date of Christ's crucifixion? According to the OP, "The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD." That's a period of c 700 years. Or roughly 25,000 days. The shroud could have been manufactured on any of the 25,000 days during that period, according to the to the OP
If, for the purposes of discussion, we grant that the shroud is in fact that of Jesus', then it was wrapped around his body on a single specific day sometime c33AD.* So using the study's own data, the 'fit' is approx 1 chance in c25,000. Which is an awfully long way from a neat fit. On this evidence alone, the chances of the 'shroud' being made on a day other than the relevant day are approx 24,999/1.

radio carbon dating figures r never exact. they are always based on percentages of probability. if tha date is between 300 bc & 400 ad then tha radio carbon median point of greatest probability is 50 ad, only 17 yrs from tha averaged historic date of Christs death. i reckon thats pretty remarkable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
ouch nice bitta sarcasm there tweaks cept it is spelt crucifiction too http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Crucifiction but worry not coz i'll still give ya yr biscuit

Actually it's not, please note that link does nothing but forward you to the correct spelling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
radio carbon dating figures r never exact. they are always based on percentages of probability. if tha date is between 300 bc & 400 ad then tha radio carbon median point of greatest probability is 50 ad, only 17 yrs from tha averaged historic date of Christs death. i reckon thats pretty remarkable.

You may have misread the article. The radiocarbon date makes the shroud about 600 years old.
According to the OP, Spectroscopy set the date from 300BC to 400AD.
There is only one problem with that. Spectroscopy ONLY detects chemical composition, not age. (I did it for a living for 7 years).
The only way it would be used to detect age would be something like paint pigments to detect modern forgeries.

quote:

The applications are many. AMS is most often employed to determine the concentration of 14C, e.g. by archaeologists for radiocarbon dating. An accelerator mass spectrometer is required, over other forms of mass spectrometry, because of their insufficient abundance sensitivity, and to resolve stable nitrogen-14 from radiocarbon. Due to the long half-life of 14C, decay counting requires significantly larger samples. 10Be, 26Al, and 36Cl are used for surface exposure dating in geology. 3H, 14C, 36Cl, and 129I are used as hydrological tracer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

tweakabelle
Does this evidence fit "so neatly" with the purported date of Christ's crucifixion? According to the OP, "The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD." That's a period of c 700 years. Or roughly 25,000 days. The shroud could have been manufactured on any of the 25,000 days during that period, according to the to the OP
If, for the purposes of discussion, we grant that the shroud is in fact that of Jesus', then it was wrapped around his body on a single specific day sometime c33AD.* So using the study's own data, the 'fit' is approx 1 chance in c25,000. Which is an awfully long way from a neat fit. On this evidence alone, the chances of the 'shroud' being made on a day other than the relevant day are approx 24,999/1.

radio carbon dating figures r never exact. they are always based on percentages of probability. if tha date is between 300 bc & 400 ad then tha radio carbon median point of greatest probability is 50 ad, only 17 yrs from tha averaged historic date of Christs death. i reckon thats pretty remarkable.

This is the numerical equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This kind of juggling with numbers is little more than pure conjecture with an ulterior motive - you wish to support your belief in the shroud's veracity.

You are free to manipulate numbers any way you choose. However let's be clear - you have left any valid scientific or mathematical basis for your claims far behind when you spin the study's findings in this fashion.

quote:

sorry tweak but doubt tha label of numerical rabbit pulling would go to anyone but yrself for dividing 700 yrs into days. no dating method is anywhere near that accurate. yup tha dating figures have a broad base but if tha median point between 300bc & 400 ad is 50ad then thats tha most probable date. as it goes closer to 400ad or 300bc tha dating is percentages less probably. heres some % figures http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#conventions_timescale

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[101][102][241] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[12] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[239]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[4][9][242][243] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines, and that classical historians, as well as biblical scholars now regard it as effectively refuted.[10] Referring to the theories of non-existence of Jesus, Richard A. Burridge states: "I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."

Perhaps Jesus was a real person. That is, a figure in history. The only non-gospel post-Temple historian who mentioned Jesus that I know of was Josephus, and that barely. There is some controversy about the authenticy of that small passage. I would love to know what other Greco-Roman sources you reference.

quote:


Additionally, as I understand Christianity there is a wide divergence of sects. I do not speak for them but also from my understanding those who have found the LIVING Christ and walk with him in their lives do not need relics or artifacts or science to give them solace and justification. The relics seem to be more needy of those who have submitted their faith in a clerical hierarchy who build their authority on the body of a dead Jesus. Even his foreskin was allegedly preserved and venerated, although: "According to the author David Farley, "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."

What does Faith need of Science? And what does that need tell us of the frailty of Faith?